This kills the chr*stard...

This kills the chr*stard...

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because some may be saved by knowing it since the whole point is to be saved by it. The main consensus is that some who don't know about it will be saved regardless of it since God is the just judge. Further, there's no certainty that you will be one of the ones who will make it.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      how can one sin if one does not know what is sin?

      • 3 months ago
        ࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇

        THE SAME WAY THAT ONE CAN INGEST & DIGEST SOMETHING WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT IT IS; THE ESSENCE OF THE ACT IS IN THE ACT ITSELF, NOT IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF IT.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Look, either explaining what sin is to people is doesn't really do anything (you seem to lean this way)
          or
          God is being kinda unfair to people who don't know what sin is

          • 3 months ago
            ࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇

            >Look, either explaining what sin is to people is doesn't really do anything (you seem to lean this way)

            >or

            >God is being kinda unfair to people who don't know what sin is

            NEITHER.

            EXPLAINING TO PEOPLE WHAT SIN IS, MAKES THEM AWARE OF IT, AND ABLE TO BE COGNIZANT OF IT, IN ORDER TO AVOID INCURRING IN IT.

            IT IS NOT A MATTER OF FAIRNESS, BUT OF NATURE: IF YOU FALL, YOU HURT YOURSELF, NOT BECAUSE GOD INFLICTED PAIN TO YOU, BUT BECAUSE YOUR BODY HIT THE FLOOR.

            GOD DOES NOT MAKE YOU SIN, NOR IS HE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR SINNING.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nice dishonest comparison moron
            People who go through life careful not to fall do not get sent to buttfrick dimension because they didnt worship a rabbi on a stick

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          what a contrived way of saying "god is not just"

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Do you have a YouTube video explaining the Trinity and Metaphysics. Someone posted a link, and I think it was in all caps. Was that you?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        The same way someone being punched feels hurts without knowing why or what pain. Further, most societies have a moral code, so sin isn't some fully foreign concepts.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Morality is subjective. I do not feel bad for being greedy a priori .

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then go have sex with an infant. I’m sure it will benefit someone, shlomo

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sexual attraction is not morality. The bible forbids homosexuality but homosexuality is not inherently amoral.

            It seems all you can do is cope and seethe, christard. You are disproven yet again, just as always. Do you never get tired of the endless humiliation, or do you perhapse enjoy it?

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Vatican II

  3. 3 months ago
    Dirk

    Priest is wrong

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    The priest is an idiot. Anyone who hasn't heard about Christ goes to Hell when they die. >Remember to fill out the appropriate fields when responding to gaytheist threads.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Says more about how Christians don't know shit about their religion

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >all the people born before Jesus were condemned to eternal hellfire for bad luck
      Do people really believe this shit?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        No, God exist outside time. Jesus sacrifice was kinda like an episode of Doctor Who, where he retroactively saved everyone, past, present, and future, in all the different timelines.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          He didn't though because all the people born before him are burning forever in Hell

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Anyone who hasn't heard about Christ goes to Hell when they die
      hmm

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        You seriously think it's possible for God to fail to have the elect hear his gospel?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >God already elected people who get to be saved
          Lmao very cool and just god you got there Schlomo

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      In that case the Christian God is objectively evil.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        By what objective standard?
        Did you mean subjectively evil?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          because he hurts my feelings

  5. 3 months ago
    ࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇

    ONE CAN SIN WITHOUT KNOWING GOD; THOSE WHO DIE, OR HAVE DIED, WITHOUT THE GRACE OF GOD & IN IGNORANCE OF HIM, GO & HAVE GONE TO LIMBO/PURGATORY; THEY WILL BE JUDGED AT THE END OF TIME IN CONCORD WITH THE JUSTNESS OF THEIR MORALITY DURING THEIR LIFE.

    THAT MEMETIC IMAGE WAS MADE BY SOMEONE DEFICIENT IN THEIR GRASP OF THEOLOGY, AND IGNORANT ABOUT DOGMA.

    • 3 months ago
      Dirk

      Papist fanfiction

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Heretic ranting

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Namegay cope

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >IGNORANT ABOUT DOGMA.
      As one should be. Dogmatism is for morons.

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Only those who search for God or would search for God can be saved. Those who would reject God upon hearing about Him in this life would also reject God upon meeting Him in the next life. The Gospel is only bad news to the unrepentant sinner, but good news to those being saved. No one, including those with complete ignorance of God may freely sin, for they are without excuse as God is written on every heart.

    "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I've seen this fricking image like 2,000 times already

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's a big problem for non-universalist/non-Calvinist Christians

  8. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    he would ONLY be saved from the sin of non-christianity but that doesnt mean a blanket-pass for any other sin against Natural Law (incest, rape, murder, etc)
    so, the inuit must be a good human being, sexually moral, non-criminal and THEN it wont matter he never knew what a Bible or Jesus is

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Do Christians even care about sins except for those big "against natural law" ones?
      Like wearing mixed fabric, or working on a Sunday.

      I guess there's blasphemy, that one's bad. But then you already kinda need to know about God.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Since God murders, does he also sin?

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Wrong, Christians literally believe anyone who wasn't by chance exposed to their particular religion deserves hell.

  10. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Christcucks derive a sadistic pleasure from the idea of people being tortured in hell, the goyim hatred is an inheritance from their israelite masters.

  11. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    christianity is genuinely one of the stupidest religions out there.

  12. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    atheism is genuinely one of the stupidest religions out there.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Atheism isn't a religion, no matter how angry it makes you and how many times you try to conflate them

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        its also the easiest religion to troll apparently

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          there is no god famalam, no matter how sad this makes you

          Once Christians have control of America again people will be slaughtered for saying such things. Anyone who denies Christ will have their children raped then flayed alive in front of them, their entrails fed to dogs, then they will be burned alive on livestream. This is the will of our Just and Meeciful God, praise Him. PRAISE HIMMMM

          I understand what you're doing and it's insane that the irony is lost on christians

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >there is no god famalam, no matter how sad this makes you
            ok prove it

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are the one claiming there is a god, you have to prove that there is one
            As for there being no god, the entire universe can be explained with pure natural laws, and there is no need to assert a god in any capacity, whether it be for the start of the universe or for any causal systems within it. and no, causality itself is not a personal god, and doesn't need a god to be explained.

            ultimately it's a fear of death. Death is scary now but when we're dead we are nothing so it's not something to be afraid of in a sense. Youre gonna die and be gone forever and so is everyone in your family and such, it's all good senpai just accept it.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the entire universe can be explained with pure natural laws

            It may happen bu for now that is absolutely not the case. We are missing key pieces of the puzzle.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're right
            I just see no reason to think there is a god, or rather, I see no evidence for a personal god and no reason to believe in a personal god

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You are the one claiming there is a god, you have to prove that there is one
            and by necessity you are claiming there is concepts like: logic, reason, human consciousness, objective truth, but has no basis for you have to prove that there is one
            if you cannot show that objective truth exists then the statement there is no god cannot be objectively true

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Objectivity can exist without a personal god
            There can be material things, in our universe's case it would be the particles of the standard model, that objectively exist, without there being any god.
            logic and reason do not need a personal god
            consciousness does not need a personal god.
            it is perfectly possible for dumb impersonal natural forces and blobs of matter to coagulate into larger structures without any plan or guidance or god. I don't understand why this is so scary or difficult for religious people to understand.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Objectivity can exist without a personal god
            ok prove it
            >There can be material things, in our universe's case it would be the particles of the standard model, that objectively exist, without there being any god
            you're just asserting this you haven't shown that to be true.
            >logic and reason do not need a personal god
            ok prove it, how do you know logic and reason exist?
            >consciousness does not need a personal god.
            again just begs the question how do you know this is true
            >it is perfectly possible for dumb impersonal natural forces and blobs of matter to coagulate into larger structures without any plan or guidance or god. I don't understand why this is so scary or difficult for religious people to understand.
            only further assertions, no proof whatsoever
            you have no understanding of epistemology

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            The statement "Objectivity can exist without a god" is trivial. Mathematical laws are an example of objective laws which do not require a personal god.

            There absolutely was a "before" the first movement. You seem to be creating a materialist parody of an argument that you don't quite understand.

            if there was something before a first movement, it wasn't the first.
            Anyway, I'm not claiming a "first'. You are. There is no beginning, the things i'm calling natural laws have no beginning and no end.
            You asserting that there is a first movement doesn't mean anything. There wasn't one.

            What it comes down to is you all simply saying that laws of logic and reason and shit require a god to exist. They don't, and they aren't personal. Why is this hard for you to wrap your minds around?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There wasn't one.
            Ahhhh so you're a believer in the "infinite regression" myth? That dominos have been falling forever and there was no first domino, the further you go back you just find more and more dominos with no beginning. Riiiiiight...

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >if there was something before a first movement, it wasn't the first.
            Conflation fallacy. This and the rest of your post demonstrates how unaware you are of what a mover and what a movement is in the First Cause argument. Sorry, again, you just don't know what you're talking about and it's becoming increasingly apparent with each consequent post.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the entire universe can be explained with pure natural laws
            No it can't. Explain who the First Mover was with "Natural Laws". You lost.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Natural laws are themselves the so called first movers
            The a priori is not a conscious personal god being, but just dumb forces of nature that always were and always will be. They do not have personalities or minds.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Natural laws are themselves the so called first movers
            Natural laws are patterns. Where were the patterns before the first movement?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            So which natural law specifically was the First Mover, and what did it "move first"? Will you give an actual answer, or a "well I don't believe it was God so it must have been some natural law which I will not define"

            The things I'm calling "natural laws" are eternal and do not come from anywhere, much like you claim god is eternal and does not come from anywhere. The difference is that you are asserting it is a personal being with a mind and a plan and other such things. This is false.
            A implies B and B implies C, thus A imply C is not a personal thing, does not require any god to exist, is eternal, and has no personality or mind. It is an eternal natural law that has no beginning and no end, and it isn't a law "created by" a personal god or something. It itself IS the eternal thing. As an example.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The things I'm calling "natural laws" are eternal and do not come from anywhere
            That doesn't answer

            >Natural laws are themselves the so called first movers
            Natural laws are patterns. Where were the patterns before the first movement?

            >>>> Where were the patterns before the first movement?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            the natural laws are eternal, they dont "come after" a "first movement".
            "all things are identical to itself" is not something that "came after" a "first movement" by a "god" who "decided" it or something.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >they don't "come after"
            That's why I'm asking where they were "before".

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is no "before"
            The natural laws are the eternal things, not a personal god.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            There absolutely was a "before" the first movement. You seem to be creating a materialist parody of an argument that you don't quite understand.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            If there was no "before" then was there even a "first"? What made the natural laws decide, suddenly, to start lawing and existing. Why did they decide to start a chain of events that would create everything around us? What were they doing before they created all of this around us?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Again, you keep attributing personalities. "Decide" doesn't apply to impersonal forces.

            >There wasn't one.
            Ahhhh so you're a believer in the "infinite regression" myth? That dominos have been falling forever and there was no first domino, the further you go back you just find more and more dominos with no beginning. Riiiiiight...

            Yes, that is in fact what is happening, and the laws that are eternal are not created nor are they personal.
            A -> B -> C => A -> C does not need a personal god to create and doesn't have a beginning.

            >if there was something before a first movement, it wasn't the first.
            Conflation fallacy. This and the rest of your post demonstrates how unaware you are of what a mover and what a movement is in the First Cause argument. Sorry, again, you just don't know what you're talking about and it's becoming increasingly apparent with each consequent post.

            Nope, you simply asserting there needs to be a first mover doesn't mean there needs to be one, and you simply saying that impersonal laws actually have a personality doesn't mean anything.

            There is no actual reason or need for a personal god. None whatsoever.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you simply asserting there needs to be a first mover doesn't mean there needs to be one
            Correct. Inductive logic providing proof means there needs to be one.
            >you simply saying that impersonal laws actually have a personality
            I never said that. I asked you where the laws were. You couldn't answer.

            Again, you just gave me more proof of you not understanding the First Cause argument. No understanding. None whatsoevere.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Correct. Inductive logic providing proof means there needs to be one.
            no, it doesn't.
            >I never said that. I asked you where the laws were. You couldn't answer.
            I did - the natural laws are eternal, they do not have a first cause or mover, and they are not personal.

            >Again, you just gave me more proof of you not understanding the First Cause argument. No understanding. None whatsoevere.
            This is wrong, the first cause argument doesn't actually hold. That's what I'm explaining.

            It is not the case that everything needs a first mover and it is not the case that there is a personal god which is this first mover.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >>I asked you where the laws were
            >eternal
            No comment.

            >no, it doesn't
            If you say so. I concede. I have made it completely apparent you have nothing.

            >>your assertions mean nothing
            >[his explanation is a mere assertion]
            Coolio.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            But that's the point.
            You are claiming personality to things where there doesn't need to be one.
            A is a subset of B and B is a subset of C, thus A is a subset of C does not require a god or personality or something which caused it, but it is still true and eternal.
            Why attribute a personality or a personal god to create this? It's pointless and just a cope to feel good about the fact that you're going to die. There is no actual logical argument or reason that you can give to explain why you need a god or a personality for natural laws. You just want there to be one.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You are claiming personality to things where there doesn't need to be one.
            It does. If you had ever seen the inductive logic part of the argument, you would know. But all you seem to actually know is "there is a first mover being claimed".
            Again, I completely concede everything. It's pointless to discuss this with you.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It does. If you had ever seen the inductive logic part of the argument, you would know.
            I have seen it, and it doesn't hold. You getting angry doesn't mean anything. You going "I, like, can't even right now!" doesn't serve as an argument.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Totally you have. That's why you answered a "where" with a "when" and then skipped over half the points.
            You got your concession and you can do nothing to convince me you currently know what you're talking about. Feel free to disengage.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nope, eternal laws don't have a "where" nor a "when". They have no personalities and nothing created them. And there is no part of any cosmological arguments that prove otherwise.
            You getting angry at this doesn't mean anything. If you actually have an argument, provide it rather than sitting there seething about this.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >more assertions
            >none in line with First Mover argument
            Sure!

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            The reason you aren't actually writing out any argument is because you don't have one. Stop coping about it

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is no argument going on since

            >>I asked you where the laws were
            >eternal
            No comment.

            >no, it doesn't
            If you say so. I concede. I have made it completely apparent you have nothing.

            >>your assertions mean nothing
            >[his explanation is a mere assertion]
            Coolio.

            I don't know why you keep engaging.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You asked "where are the laws". They aren't anywhere, A < B < C -> A < C doesn't have a location. It also has no beginning and was not created by anything. It is eternal and impersonal.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nice.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If you say so. I concede. I have made it completely apparent you have nothing.
            No you haven't

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, that is in fact what is happening
            Your natural laws don't work without meeting a specific set of prerequisites. The Water Cycle, evaporation, condensation, precipitation... none of that works if there is no water, or if there is no atmosphere. No law works in a vacuum. Even the natural laws require a "first" in order to work, and because they require something first, they cannot be the "first mover". The first mover needs to be unmovable and all-powerful, and only God is such. Your infinite regression is paradoxical, and it is not an explanation for anything but your stupidity.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            God is a Natural Law. He is THE LAW actually. So me saying the First Mover was God is no different than you claiming it was some arbitrary unknown random law that you cannot pinpoint or define. In fact, my answer is better and more precise than yours. It's very easy to say "everything can be explained through natural laws" when you decide you don't even have to define what those natural laws are or how they worked.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is a bullshit thing to believe
            You are as cucked as a religious moron
            There is no proof or knowledge of ANY such laws
            In fact, as far as we can tell EVERY law of our realoty was randomly generated due to the conditions during its creation
            We have NO WAY to know of fundamental laws even exist, much less what they vould possibly be

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            So which natural law specifically was the First Mover, and what did it "move first"? Will you give an actual answer, or a "well I don't believe it was God so it must have been some natural law which I will not define"

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Who do you homosexuals end up here? Is the the Reddit echo chamber boring?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        All ideologies are religions. Cope and seethe gaytheist.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          THISSSS SO MUCH THIS
          AND SINCE ATHEISM IS A HERRTIC PAGAN IDOLATRY WR HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL THEM, SLAUGHTER THEIR CHILDREN, BURN THEIR HOMES, RAZE THEIR CITIES, RAPE THEIR WIVES
          DEUS VULTT

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      very true

      Atheism isn't a religion, no matter how angry it makes you and how many times you try to conflate them

      this is your brain on atheism

  13. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    there is no hell and there is no heaven

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Once Christians have control of America again people will be slaughtered for saying such things. Anyone who denies Christ will have their children raped then flayed alive in front of them, their entrails fed to dogs, then they will be burned alive on livestream. This is the will of our Just and Meeciful God, praise Him. PRAISE HIMMMM

  14. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Romans 2:14-15
    >Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it.
    >They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.
    If you are not a good Christ-like person, then you will go to Hell for breaking the law that God has written into your Human conscience. Therefor, you stand a better chance at going to Heaven if you hear God's word through his followers, and so they teach you why it must be followed. If you hear the good word and still refuse to believe it, then you're going to Hell just like you would have before.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      if they genuinely understood that they would go to hell, and not just face consequences in this life (which even other species can intuit through evolved instincts), then they probably wouldn’t sin in the first place. Nobody deserves eternal hell just because of their natural predisposition to sin. What fricking nonsense. You really have to be a Calvinist or universalist to be a Christian

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's not just that they fear they will "just face consequences in this life" but that a piece of their soul protests against whatever sin it is they are committing. Take any evil action you want: murder, rape, theft; in each case the perpetrator understand there is something wrong with the action, even if they do not fear consequences of their actions, they do it anyway. Through a Christian Missionary coming to spread the good word, we can better explain to these savages why these actions are immoral.

  15. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    There is no hell as a place in Christianity (Proties need not apply). Hell is the absence of God.

  16. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    So that you stopped sinning you fricking savage. Why is this even a meme? It’s so stupid.

  17. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because you already know.

  18. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because people evolve?

  19. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because the white man come... with all his "civility". And you need to keep your mind in check - because there is an infection you do not see Eskimo

  20. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    The classical Christian view would be that of Aristotle, in that you can to an extent come to understanding of moral law through pure rationalism.

    If the eskimo went around killing people he'd still probably go to hell, even if he didn't know Jesus.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *